They DID choose it carefully. Which makes me wonder why you're ignoring what they wrote.
Do you realize what the second amendment says? Do you think it says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? That's certainly all you're focused on and talking about.
Anyways, the courts have ruled that it protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a state Militia from federal infringement.
The USSC has said in Miller that the first part of the Second Amendment exists to clarify what is meant by the term "arms". It is not restricted to "hunting" or "sporting" weapons, but nor is it so broad as to include any and all artifacts which could conceivably by used somehow as weapons. After all, if everything that could conceivably be used as a weapon were protected, the government couldn't impose any tariffs or other restrictions on much of anything (an object could be used as a weapon, such restrictions would constitute "infringement").
The staffer who wrote the syllabus for Miller seems to have found that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but I see no reason why that person's opinion should bear any weight whatsoever.
In order to form..... RP this is about people being familiar with guns and owning their own guns so when called, they are armed and prepared with basic knowledge about firearms used regularly at that given time.
I like what you did with this post, you jumpe right to 'well courts said'. NOtice you used past tense. In addition take a good look at your wording, chosen carefully eh?
You say 'as part of' and the framers sure didn't say that did they? Nope. The framers speak in the future and you read in the present. Therin lies a big part of why you have this so wrong. False assumption will do that every time RP.
I have read your posts on the second amendment repeatedly. At some point in your posts, you normally say that you support the 2nd, but that in light of all of the precedent, it is unrealistic to hope that this amendments rights will ever be interpreted as individual.
Your posts today, however, do not support the 2nd amendment as written and intended, but rather a nonsensical perversion of the language. You are not arguing that precedent is lacking, but rather that the 2nd is not what it claims to be. But, it is hard to argue a lack of precedent when it is apparent that precedent is starting to accumulate.
None of your comments are supported by any reading of the plain language of the amendment. In spite of this, you seem content to throw light-weight jabs at posters as well as at well reasoned writing.
Read the decision and answer the arguments. Try it.